markjones011 at tiscali.co.uk
Fri Dec 6 06:12:40 MST 2002
[sorry, I missed out what it was that James wrote, which was this:]
James Daly wrote:
> Serves me right, Mark, for speaking of evasion.
> My first answer to your question is that hard cases make bad laws.
Jon Flanders was wrong to be so flip about the possibility of a collapse of
the North Atlantic thermohaline (the deep ocean currents which support the
Gulf Stream). There has been a lot of press and academic discussion about
this very possibility, and what's more there is a view expressed even on the
British Met Office website that it may be happening right now. That's the
problem with apcalyptic scenarios. Even tho they are predicted, they still
take people by surprise. The possibility of a collapse of the Gulf Stream
which I suggested is not remote at all. (A Google search on 'north atlantic
thermohaline' will bring up as the first result this paper:
The title is "Detecting a potential collapse of the North Atlantic
thermohaline". It begins: 'Many climate models predict a collapse of the
North Atlantic thermohaline circulation (THC)as a result of anthropogenic
climate change. The economic damages attending such a global change may be
So it might even be that it is Messrs Aherne and Blair who have to answer my
As I understand your answer, assuming the discussion about Sartre to be
going on inside a submarine, the crew will have first secured the escape
hatches regardless of the fate of anyone left outside, before continuing
their discussions... Very practical too. Yes, it is wrong to murder people
and survive, but unfortunately for us we are all descended from Cain as well
as Abel. As you say, morality sometimes requires not a right but a good
answer. Such moral relativism is the stuff of government. Even socialist
government, I would argue.
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism